Instructions to Reviewers

A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article so they play an important role in blind peer review process. All the members are requested to test out the manuscripts submitted to them without any bias to increase the quality of our journal. There is no hard and fast rule to analyse a manuscript and it depends upon the worthiness, quality and originality.
The main factors you should provide advice on as a reviewer are the originality, presentation, relevance, and significance of the manuscript’s subject matter to the readership of the journal.
Reviewer responsibilities to authors include the following:
·         Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with rationale for your opinion.
·         Provide your review as soon as possible within 7 working days. If you cannot do so, please contact at editor@arseam.com
·         Indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
·         Avoid personal comments or criticism.
·         Refrain from direct author contact without the editor’s permission.
·         Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from the editorial office.

Reviewer responsibilities to editors include the following:

·         Alert the editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists .
·         Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
·         Avoid comments to authors about acceptance or rejection of the paper; include such remarks as confidential comments for editors.
·         Note any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.

Try to have the following questions in mind while you are reading the manuscript:

Is the submission original?
Is the research cutting edge or topical?
Does it help to expand or further research in this subject area?
Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
Is there an abstract or brief summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section? Is the paper complete?
Is the submission is in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?
Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?

Make a recommendation
Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication. The specific decision types used by a journal may vary but the key decisions are:

Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
Minor changes– if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
Weak accept with Major changes – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

Provide detailed comments

These should be suitable for transmission to the authors: use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
If you have time, make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation.
Confirm whether you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length; if you recommend shortening, it is useful to the author(s) if you can indicate specific areas where you think that shortening is required.
It is not the job of the reviewer to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.

Aims and Objectives

Ethics Policy

Peer Review Policy

Call for Paper

Conference

Instruction To Review

Guide To Authors